EL-DUDERINO

[quote]Not really. 2008 has been the coolest year (globally) in a decade. The alarmists will say it's just an oscillation in 'the' upward trend, but the fact is they don't know. If 2009 remains cooler, it'll be interesting to see what rationalization they come up with then.[/quote] They'll just that it is cooler because of global warming. You know, ice caps melting causing the oceans to cool which then cause the overall temp to be cooler or some such nonsense. Maybe Al Gor

[quote]Except for this year.[/quote] It depends on where you are. Where I live we have had a relatively mild winter. Sure we've had more snow so far this year than we did by this time last year but I am fairly sure that we have had warmer overall temps. For instance even though it snowed here on Friday it was in the 50s yesterday and was into the low 70s here today, yet tonight it is expected to get back to freezing along with some icy conditions.

[quote]Divination, not deviation (ok, you may mean the latter, but I meant the former).[/quote] Sorry that's my fault, I misread your comment. I still stand by my assessment that it is within a judges duties when the facts suggest an intent. [quote] would argue against that. Since clearly they were in a place where all were gay, their chosing one is just a crime. And probably not a hate crime since this was simply a premeditated one. Hate is involved with many

[quote]I'm going to do a Clinton on you - it depends on what you define Global Warming as. If you define it as some years lately have been warmer, it sure looks that way. If you define it as an irreversible trend, then no it is not. [/quote] I should have been more clear. Rational people won't deny that the earth is currently warming. Man-made global warming is simply impossible to prove and anyone who tells you differently is either lieing to you or a nut-job (pos

[quote]Silly you! Everyone knows they are only there to provide democrats with large money donations! [/quote] My idealism is showing again isn't it? Damn, I thought I had that under control.

[quote]What you mean by refusing to budge, like Sen Corker, is burn the contract.[/quote] If I recall correctly all the UAW was asked by the Senator was whether they were willing to take a pay cut in order for the big three to get access to federal funds. The UAW said no. And so the Senate responded in kind. I always thought the main reason a union existed was to protect the worker, how are they protecting them when they are crippling the company that they work for t

[quote]most newspapers are going out of business because they have to compete with the internet, which provides free news, & because of the current state of the economy.[/quote] If newspapers would provide news that people actually want to read I don't think they would be in the dire straits that they are in right now. I'm not saying they would be well off, but I don't think they would be struggling as much. [quote]As far as the environment goes, it should be obvious

[quote]No, it is exactly the same. Looking for intent in a law is one thing. Looking for intent in an individual is divination.[/quote] But when the facts of the case show a clear intent then it is not a deviation. If a KKK member or neo-nazi walks into a gay bar and attacks a patron or goes up and attacks someone waiting to get into a known gay club then the intent there is that it was a hate crime because the individual or individuals were singled out for being a member of a m

People keep on saying that print is dead but I don't think that is completely accurate. I think that people are just getting sick of the biased news that they get day in and day out. Why pay for a subscription to read the same biased "news" that you can get for free online. I am a firm believer that if you make a product that people want they will purchase it and I think too many print magazines and newspapers simply aren't doing that anymore which is why they are failing.</

[quote]Hannity is inferring the corruption from the actions of a few. And indeed, that is what the democrats did with Craig and foley.[/quote] I stand corrected. Although I think the accusation of hypocrisy is less damning than corruption but I see your point. Personally I never really care for the whole guilt by association arguments.

[quote]Here's my beef (this is a tangent, as I respect our agreeto disagree). No one can know intent unless stated. And it is not stated. So I will "read" into it something that you may not. Which is normal, we are human after all. But when they start reading "intent" into anything, what they are doing is saying "IMHO". IN other words, they are legislating from the bench.[/quote] A judges job is to interpret the law. That's what they do, so them reading "intent" is perfectly wit

[quote]Actually, while the intent was I believe to circumvent the ruling, clearly this is a case of Judges making law as a moment of silence is not religious or mandatory prayer. I give MM this round.[/quote] We will just have to agree to disagree here because I still maintain that a moment of silence, intended for prayer, discriminates against religions that do not do silent prayer. [quote]This one again goes to MM. As the ruling prevented students from practicing their relig

[quote]yes it is, because it does not require what religion you MUST pray about, you can be Jewish and pray in the Jewish manner. so this argument is bogus.[/quote] If I am remembering correctly there were school lead prayers prior to that 1962 case which meant that the school was favoring one religion over another. What if a student happened to be Hindu and the prayer was judeao-christian in nature. That is favoring one religion over another which is unconstitutional.

Let's take it case by case. [quote]In 1962, Prayer was restricted in the public schools.[/quote] This is declaring a practice at a government entity to be unconstitutional because it is favoring one religion over another. That isn't legislating from the bench. [quote]In 1973, the Court found that the "right to personal privacy" which erroneously included to unrestricted abortion {the case was called Roe V Wade and now 45 Million babies have been sacrificed on the

This whole "selling a Senate seat" thing has just fueled my position that no actively sitting elected official should be allowed to campaign for a different elected position. Furthermore no actively sitting elected official should be allowed to be appointed to some other position. The people have elected those representatives to do a specific job, not to job hunt. For example it is a major conflict of interest for an actively sitting US Senator or Representative

[quote]legislating from the bench [/quote] The only case from the ones that you presented that was in any way legislating from the bench was Roe. The others are merely doing what the judicial branch was meant to do, interpret laws and act as a check on the legislative branch to prevent unconstitutional laws.

[quote]Like Craig[/quote] Larry Craig isn't exactly the best example to use here. He is a lawmaker who plead guilty to something hoping it would go away. When it didn't all of the sudden he claims he was coerced, nevermind the fact that he submitted his plea weeks after being arrested and chose not to consult legal counsel in the process. While I agree the Dems are just as guilty as folks like Hannity at seacing for muck that isn't there Craig isn't the best example.

[quote]Iraq Mistake, farm subsidies to millionaires, tax writeoffs, tax shelters, interest deduction on home mortgages, tax incentives for auto transplants, entitlements-[/quote] Just because these exist doesn't make them right. Just because something has been done before doesn't mean it should be continued. At some point it has to stop, at some point we have to declare that enough is enough. I for one passed that point a long time ago and I really think it is time f

[quote]they are too big to fail[/quote] No one is too big to fail. If they were too big to fail then they wouldn't be failing right now would they? Yes it is true that the bigger they are the harder they fall and the big three failing would have tremendous impact to our economy. However propping up a failing business model is merely delaying the inevitable. At what point do we cut off the big three. They were asking for money a few months ago and

[quote]All of a sudden bankruptcy is a good thing![/quote] No one ever said that bankruptcy was a good thing, but it is what a company should do before going to Washington looking for a handout. No one is saying that times aren't going to be tough, and certainly no one is saying that they want potentially millions of people to lose their jobs, but the thought of using tax payer money to prop up a failing business model just doesn't make any sense and it is certainly NOT the Amer

[quote]I agree. They should be allowed to reorganize under bankruptcy protection and have a shot at competing again. The notion that 'millions' of jobs will somehow vanish if they are allowed to file bankruptcy is nothing but a scare/extortion tactic. Jobs 'will' be lost, but there is no alternative that will simultaneously preserve those jobs and make the big 3 competitive.[/quote] I completely agree. The notion that no one will buy a car from a company in bankruptcy is simply

[quote]So enjoy it i guess. I am sure they will be back in march.[/quote] You think it'll take till march for them to come back? I'm betting they start angling for more by the end of January, if they wait that long. I mean their number went from 25 billion to 34 billion in the span of two weeks. In two weeks they somehow needed 9 billion more, so what is to stop them from blowing thru 14 billion in 3 or 4 weeks. [quote]Regardless of your views, the automotive

[quote]On the last part - I can understand. They flunked math![/quote] I'm not sure if they flunked math or not, I really wasn't paying close attention to what they were saying, it was the Today Show afterall, so I could have gotten the number of years wrong but I know they said 4 governors in a row as they had pictures of the other 3 on the screen at the time.

[quote]I think the "taxation supporter" in your dialogue up there is a bit of a straw man.[/quote] I think it's a bit of a given that in this case it is a straw man but it is used correctly in that he said that in general his conversations with tax supporters generally boil down to the conversation provided. [quote]do you support any level of taxation at all?[/quote] From what I've been reading on the various posts here it sounds like few if any have a problem with pay

[quote]That makes 2 in a row. You are on a winning streak.[/quote] According to the Today Show this morning it makes 4 in a row (I think they actually said 4 in 4 years).